I also can't understand how the Roman Legions were so effective! I've always thought the short sword would have been at a massive disadvantage against any soldiers with more than a little armour.

In Medieval times the sword wasn't so much used to 'cut' enemies as it was 'bash' them, using the force of the blow rather than cutting edge of the sword to deliver the fatal strike.

I can see that during the Roman period people would have worn a lot less armour, but I still see the short sword, which seemed so popular, to be an ineffective weapon. Now I know very little about this period in history, but I remember someone saying the gladius was used in short stabbing actions, surely fighting in this way wouldn't have allowed a legionaire to transfer enough force through the breast plate and into the soldier behind, would it? Though the barbarians probably wore next to no armour, most of the Greeks, Macedonians, Seleucids, Carthaginians etc who the Romans defeated would have. How did they manage? I must be looking at this in the wrong way.

Somebody educate me!